2018 QCCQ 16871, 2018 QCCQ 16871

Protection de la jeunesse — 186395 2018 QCCQ 16871 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 105-41-000407-164 DATE: July 4, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2001 Adolescent -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on June 5, 2017, in respect of the adolescent. [ 2 ] The mother is present and represented. Through her counsel, she admits some of the facts, but denies or denies as written others. However, she agrees with the recommendations made by the DYP and consents to the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author.

The mother did not testify nor did she present any evidence. [ 3 ] The adolescent is absent but duly represented. The adolescent‘s lawyer agrees with the conclusions of the application. [ 4 ] Regarding the father the DYP requested to be dispensed from the notification, to the latter, of the application since he is untraceable. The DYP attempted to locate him unsuccessfully. They used a specialized firm [1] to search for him without any results. It has been several months since the father, last saw his son.

He is not involved at all with him. [ 5 ] The Court considers that the father’s absence from the adolescent’s life for several years, as well as his indifference toward him, are exceptional reasons that allows the Court to grant a waiver of notification to the DYP, as expected in the third paragraph of the 5 th paragraph of

Article 76 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 6 ] The adolescent has been living with his mother, her husband and another youth. Since, September 2011, the DYP has been implicated back and forth with this family, mostly because of the mother’s issues, regarding instability and drug addiction. The intervention was mainly to be sure that all the adolescent’s needs have been met, namely his medical follow-ups, food, clothes, hygiene and shelter. In fact, those aspects were not always taken care of.

The mother is far from proactive regarding the regular appointments required for the adolescent. [ 7 ] Since the last measure ordered, the situation of the mother has improved. Since March 2017, positive changes could be noticed regarding her behaviour and her lifestyle. [ 8 ] The mother shows some reassuring changes and stability . She affirms been sober but her drug testing results remain difficult to obtain. However, she seems to be feeling better. The house is cleaner. She is more involved and she does tend to her son’s needs and to the follow-ups. Despite everything, the mother remains fragile.

[ 9 ] On the adolescent side, he refused the service of the external educator, even if, ordered by the court. At first, he also declined the psychosocial services but changed his mind. The meetings started with the professional . [ 10 ] At school, the adolescent has real difficulties. He shows little interest in his academic situation and has major delays. [ 11 ] It is crucial to keep an eye on this family. It is clear that the DYP has to remain involved in their lives, because of the recurrence of the negligence.

This has been an important issue in the recent years. [ 12 ] Besides, the mother still misses appointments with the pediatrician or does not return the DYP’s calls. Sometimes, she is not home even when appointments are previously scheduled to meet with her there. It is clear that the mother still needs to be accompanied by the DYP. [ 13 ] The following paragraphs of the psychosocial assessment [2] , sums up the family's situation: “The concerns of the DYP toward the adolescent have been the same for several years.

Even with the implication of the DYP, the response to the physical needs of the adolescent is minimal. The history of neglect and the lack of mobilization observed in the mother parental responsibilities are concerning. The high risk of neglect is still present. The recurrence of the problems is worrisome and allows the DYP to consider the possibility to see the situation going back to where it was without his involvement.” [ 14 ] Through the years, the mother has had serious difficulties to mobilize herself concerning her son’s basic needs.

It is difficult to maintain the improvement put in place, and this, even with the involvement of the DYP. Even if the situation has evolved positively regarding the mother, she still remains fragile. The risk of negligence is still present. The family needs to continue to be supported. Also, we have to make sure that the mother demonstrates consistency and stability in her improvements. [ 15 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger. Considering the admissions and the consent of the parties, the application is well founded.

The suggested measures appears to be in the best interest of the adolescent. [ 16 ] Following the hearing , the Court issued a verbal judgment forthwith, the foregoing being the written and reasoned version in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 17 ] DISPENSES the notification of the application for revision and extension of order to the father; [ 18 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 20 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on June 5, 2017; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to his mother until January 31, 2019; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the adolescent benefits from a psychological follow-up as long as deemed necessary by the concerned professional; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother submit herself to random urine drug screening tests; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receives professional assistance from an addiction’s counselor; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receives professional assistance for her personal problems; [ 26 ] ORDERS to the adolescent and his family to actively participate in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family until January 31, 2019; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Annie Dupuis for the adolescent

Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Written judgment filed in July 17, 2018.